CALL 1-888-510-BABY or click on the picture on the left, if you gave birth or are about to and can't care for your baby, to give your baby to a worker at a nearby hospital (some states also include police stations or fire stations), NO QUESTIONS ASKED. YOU WON'T GET IN ANY TROUBLE or even have to tell your name; Safehaven people will help the baby be adopted and cared for.

I know Trump didn't disavow David Duke fast enough for some people, myself included. My guess is Trump, not being a career politician or a career Republican, didn't really know who Duke was--much like he didn't know what Brexit was--and was smart enough to not state an opinion till he knew. And if turnabout is fairplay, Johnson's "What-is-Aleppo?" moment is in a similar category of ignorance. But at least Trump didn't make modern-day Nazis a protected-identity class like Johnson did.

[On a side note, I do know how it feels to be wrongly lumped-in with hateful, bigoted, violent fringe groups, as left-leaning people are doing to Trump. You are just doing your own thing, but then these hate-groups come alongside and attach themselves to your peaceful group, and you can't defend yourself in the public eye because of the "optics" of the situation which were completely out of your control. You disavow those violent hate-groups, but a large chunk of the misinformed public never believes you and never understands how wrong they are.]

On the basis of Johnson's answer to that question alone, is this a candidate to be proud of voting for?

If I were Jewish, I would rather die than be forced to bake a cake for a self-proclaimed Nazi. Heck, I'm Catholic and I would rather die than be forced for bake a cake for a Nazi.

If anyone needs help answering my question, may I suggest this, this, this, this, this, this, these and this? (one of the tamer videos but still with horrific images- viewer discretion advised)

There are some enlightening discussions of what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and its 21 different state versions really represent, at The Weekly Standard:

This is a mischaracterization of what Indiana attempted to do, which was pass a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act at the state level. The federal RFRA passed in the 1990s under Bill Clinton with overwhelming bipartisan support. Twenty-one states already have state-level RFRAs.

John McCormack has an in-depth explanation of RFRAs and what they do, but in short, the legal term of art for legislation such as RFRAs is that they are a "balancing test." RFRA provide that the state must have a compelling interest for restricting religious freedom and that requires they use the least restrictive means possible. If someone charges that their religious freedom is impeded, they make their case in court, and there's no guarantee they will win. To date, there hasn't been a single RFRA case over compelled participation in gay marriage. And the statute has been used for many broader religious freedom purposes, such as authorities trying to seize ceremonial eagle feathers from Native Americans under the guise of the Endangered Species Act.

Far from RFRAs being "clearly aimed at LGBT individuals," it's exactly the vehicle for achieving the balance between religious liberty and freedom from discrimination that Johnson claims he wants.

Johnson is a sharp guy, so what's the problem with his understanding this? One likely possibility is that the pendulum has swung so far and so fast on social issues in this country that Johnson doesn't get that religious believers have a pretty credible claim to statist oppression. If being conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues seemed like a good, quick definition of libertarianism once upon a time, well, attacking religious freedom has scrambled that definition quite a bit.
...
For months, Libertarian party candidate Gary Johnson has been pooh-poohing the idea of religious liberty, saying that he has no problem with private business owners being forced by the government to participate in gay nuptials that run counter to their religious beliefs. How a "libertarian" would be in favor of the government telling cake bakers, florists, and wedding photographers that they must participate in religious ceremonies they don't believe in is simply baffling.

What I don't understand is that not only does Johnson fail to understand America's religious liberty debates, but over time his articulation of his position has become even worse. Last week, the Washington Examiner's Tim Carney asked Johnson about religious liberty again, and Johnson said this:

"I mean under the guise of religious freedom, anybody can do anything. Back to Mormonism. Why shouldn't somebody be able to shoot somebody else because their freedom of religion says that God has spoken to them and that they can shoot somebody dead."

This is a foolish argument, not only substantively but as a matter of practical politics. As blogger Ace of Spades put it, "Apparently the right to have someone bake a cake endorsing your sexual choices lies on the same plane as the right to be free of unwanted religiously-motivated murder, and both situations compel the same analysis and conclusion."

...from the article, "Once Again, Gary Johnson Completely Misunderstands Religious Freedom: Is it too much to ask that the Libertarian espouse the libertarian position?", Aug 03, 2016, by Mark Hemingway

Here's the rest of us by age bracket:
25-34: 44.1 million (13.7%)
35-44: 40.6 million (12.6%)
45-54: 43.2 million (13.4%)
55-64: 40.9 million (12.7%)
65-74: 27.6 million (8.6%)
75+: 20.2 million (6.3%)

ALL "mods+conservatives" in both groups = 81.51 million
ALL "mods+liberals" in both groups = 65.79 million

Would the "moderates" split evenly like that? Would they even vote at all? Would the true conservatives all vote for Trump, even secretly, in the end, to stop Hillary? Who knows? It's just one way to consider what might happen. It's possible then that, even without "divvying up" those moderates, the true conservatives among the Boomers would still outnumber the true liberals among the Millennials--33 million to 23 million--even if the latter group outnumbers the former in total population.

And who is Trump speaking to mostly? Not the Millennials. They aren't the ones who've lost livelihoods to bad trade deals, outsourcing of their jobs, closing down of American manufacturing, imposition of too much government regulation and taxation making staying in business untenable.

Will Johnson's 7 or 8% in national polls actually turn out to be 15%, or even 35%? Will they hurt Hillary more than Trump? If the above Johnson stand against religious liberty is an indication, perhaps that last answer is yes, but I know at least a few young conservatives' votes he might be stealing from the Republican candidate, thinking that they in fact are voting more conservatively than I will be. I wonder if they're really following all of Gary Johnson's statements?

The radio ad Johnson is running in my state is about as demeaning to me as Hillary's recent "Deplorables basket" statement is. I've searched the Internet and can't find a transcript or audio link, so I will have to paraphrase from memory, but he himself is speaking in the spot and says this:

"If Americans are wise, we won't stand for the corrupt two-party system of rigged government, we will vote to break their power and vote Gary Johnson for President."

I guess Gary Johnson thinks that I am "not wise"? I guess he thinks I really want a corrupt two-party system of rigged government? Really, he could have been less condescending.

We are too big, too miseducated, too misinformed, to break up the two party political system using mere politics, I'm afraid. I don't want to hazard a guess at what would do the trick. It would probably be a major, externally-imposed trauma to our nation that would bring it about, something I do not wish for.

For now, just bring on the debate, put Johnson on the stage, and then all three can duke it out.

"After Abortion,...run by Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, two women who had abortions in the 1970s, ...tries to avoid the political tug-of-war that tends to come with this turf. They concentrate instead on discussing the troubling personal effects of abortion on the mothers." ~ Eric Scheske, Godspy contributing editor, in NC Register's "Signs of Life in the Blogosphere", 2/2006

"I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion...[many are] aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and [do] not doubt that it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace...You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child..."

Tongue-In-Cheek

Misc.

Syndicates

FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS NOTICES: From its inception in 2005 forward, the postings on this site are the co-bloggers' own personal opinions, observations and research, do not reflect or represent the views of any employer(s), past, present or future, nor do/will they relate in any manner to said employer(s) or their businesses at any point in time. The writings expressed herein are protected expression by virtue of the First Amendment of the United States of America and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular Articles 18 and 19, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948:

FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of the physical, emotional, social and spiritual negative effects of abortion on women, men and families, and to provide resources for help and information to anyone experiencing these effects or trying to help those who are. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.